An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.
See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:
Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation
Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.
Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.
Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong
Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)
Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)
Step 3: use force.
The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong (subtext: and therefore we should do something about it)
“Oh, but I’m just expressing my opinion. What’s wrong with that? Am I not allowed to have opinions anymore? Surely you are the actually intolerant one, because I only implied that I don’t think trans people should exist by saying they are bad and wrong”
It’s frustrating because subtext does exist and matter. They only acknowledge the subtext in their bigoted assertions when it’s convenient for them.
A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.
But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.
What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.
More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.
This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:
I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.
I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.
Tolerance is not an absolute rule, but a social contract. Members of a tolerant society agree to tolerate others so long as others do the same. When someone violates the contract by being intolerant they cannot then proceed to hide behind that same contract for protection.
At some point a judgement has to be made about what is tolerant and what is not, and that is a judgement we make collectively as upholders of the social contract.
An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
You’re the apple
Well, I’m not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that’s being blocked.
If someone wants to argue economy with me, I’ll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block
See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:
Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation
Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.
Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.
Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong
Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)
Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)
Step 3: use force.
The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.
“Oh, but I’m just expressing my opinion. What’s wrong with that? Am I not allowed to have opinions anymore? Surely you are the actually intolerant one, because I only implied that I don’t think trans people should exist by saying they are bad and wrong”
It’s frustrating because subtext does exist and matter. They only acknowledge the subtext in their bigoted assertions when it’s convenient for them.
Edit: accidentally a word
A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.
But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.
What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.
More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.
This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:
I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.
I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.
Those steps stink, probably because you pulled them out of your ass.
Looks like you’ve already completed steps 1 and 2…
deleted by creator
Tolerance is not an absolute rule, but a social contract. Members of a tolerant society agree to tolerate others so long as others do the same. When someone violates the contract by being intolerant they cannot then proceed to hide behind that same contract for protection.
At some point a judgement has to be made about what is tolerant and what is not, and that is a judgement we make collectively as upholders of the social contract.